Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
1986 C L C 2147
[Board of Revenue Punjab]
Before MaqbuL Ahmad Sheikh, Member (Colonies),
Board of Revenue
HUMAYUN--Petitioner
versus
THE STATE--Respondent
Review No.51 of 1986, decided on 25th February, 1986.
---S. 8--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5--Review--Limitation- Condonation of delay--Order under review having been passed in presence of petitioner, review, held, could be preferred only within prescribed period of ninty days--Plea of condonation being totally irrelevant was rejected and review petition dismissed as time-barred.
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf for Petitioner.
This review has been moved by the petitioner Humayun under section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act against orders of my learned predecessor passed in R . 0. R . No. 689 of 1984 under which his revision was dismissed on 1-4-1984.
2. The review petition has been heard on the preliminary issue of limitation. In the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act in an attempt to seek condonation of delay of 588 days it has been pleaded that the time in excess of the limitation of 90 days was spent in seeking the correction of entries of register Girdawari. I am afraid this plea cannot be accepted as a valid explanation for the condonation of delay. Since, the order under review was passed in the presence of p the petitioner, the review could have been preferred only within the prescribed period of 90 days. The plea for condonation is totally irrelevant and is rejected as such. The review petition is accordingly
A.A. Review petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer